About your Search

20121108
20121116
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
mccain and senator lindsey graham said today they want watergate-style hearings on the attack on the consulate in benghazi. >> i want to ask about the families of four killed. >> general petraeus is where we begin at the white house. i guess it's a good bet they would be coming up today. >> reporter: yeah. you saw the ap ask it. it didn't dominate as much as we thought. our friends at telemundo asked a question and coming back on immigration. he talked about the fiscal cliff. he laid down the law you saw him there. he wants the tax cuts extended for everybody under $250,000 and got to general petraeus and this whole intertwined story with benghazi, that's when it got really rough. the president took out after republicans namely john mccain and lindsey graham for the criticism leveled at susan rice. the u.n. secretary, shortly after the attacks that resulted in the death of four americans, she went on "meet the press" and other sunday shows and said what happened in benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest that morphed in to something else and resulted in the death of t
, lindsey graham has been outspoken for a while, but jeb bush, perhaps john boehner, but i think it's not so simple as having leaders in the party come out and say, oh, we're going to move to the center on this issue. the republican party has spent so long, number one, purifying its representatives from primaries on the right, from club for growth and tea party, and number two, really demagoguing on the issue and calling for anything that provides a path for citizenship amnesty. it's not just the republican leaderships or representatives that were the problem. when i ran for congress in virginia, we found immigration wasn't the number one issue but for republican voters it was an extremely intense, emotional issue. i don't think it's so simple as just the leadership coming out and saying this is where we want to move on immigration. what do you think? >> i don't think it's that simple, and i think the tea party in particular has a tone in it and content in it that's tree extremely skeptical about immigrati immigration. most of the tea party people were re-elected, not all of them. this is a
$250,000 would go away. that was their baseline assumption. when you hear lindsey graham saying i'm ready to embrace that, he's saying for people above $250,000, your tax rates are going to go up. i think whatever happens, whether there's a little bargain, a grand bargain or no bargain at all, because of the shape of washington after the election, it's going to mean that the wealthy are going to pay more. whether they pay more because of a higher marginal rate or a higher average rate due to less deductions they can take, and that's going to be the first focus rather than cutting spending and cutting entit entitlements on day one. >> dan gross, thank you. >> happy to be here. >>> as 44 million get set to take planes, trains and automobiles for the holidays, our next guest says that security designed to protect us is doing more harm than good. he'll explains, next. watch this. [ whoosh! ] [ man ] whoo-hoo! [ male announcer ] with reddi wip... that's so weird... [ whoosh! ] [ male announcer ] ...a slice of pie never sounded better. oh, yeah! [ male announcer ] that's because it's al
on immigration from republicans. lindsey graham yesterday said he's now going to bring back the immigration reform bill with chuck schumer and they're going to work on them. sean hannity is saying let's do comprehensive immigration reform. more specifically on the issue of taxes. it's been more than two decades. bill crystal said yesterday, yeah, it's time to do that. mitch mcconnell actually saying he was basically open to it. i'm not taking this as wow, the republicans have reinvented themselves and this is a nuj republican party and a huge change for the future. this is an aaffirmation about something about how the system is supposed to work. this is why i thought was most important in this election was what were the tactics of the republican party the last four years. their opposition party tactics of total obstruction to politically destroying the president of the other party. were those tactics validated. if they won power back by doing that, it will normally behavior by the opposition party our system is not billed for. the behavior of the republican for the last four years works in
republicans are saying. you have john mccain and lindsey graham both saying if her nomination is put forward, they will filibuster it. are there any indications that that would become an official republican party position, because if the republicans unite, they would have the 40 votes to kill it by filibuster. >> there is a lot of opposition among republicans to a potential susan rice nomination. people are not actively talking about filibuster, although that's the obvious presumption if you talk about members trying to block something like this. in some was they are saying that she was schoezen bied white house to be the public face in the early days after the attack to talk about what happened. if she were to become secretary of state, she would need sort of a greater sense of recognizing that the story that was being put forward might not be accurate. they're sort of compelling her to have greater knowledge than what was given to her by the intelligence community. she has become a political focus here. whether they actually go forward with that or not is a matter to be decided later. what
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)